• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT CONDONED AND SUPPORTED BY THE MEDICAL = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA: A CONSPIRACY. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Drs. Friesen and Slotin are the principles cited in a failure to support and enforce the Medical Research Council of Canada’s own guidelines and regulations. To Demonstrate: The University of Waterloo gave False Assurances and violated the Guidelines, Objectives and Spirit of the Medical Research Council of Canada to Promote J.C.M.Riley and Private Interests. From: E. A. Greenhalgh 265—Apt 7 Regina St.N., Waterloo, Ontario. N2J 3B9 Tel.(519)—884—3318 02 July 1996 Dr.H. Friesen Mr. P. Gerhard President of the Senior Investigator Medical Research Ombudsman Ontario. Council of Canada Dr. A.Carty Mr.Max Eldan President of the President of the National Research Canadian Human Rights Council of Canada Commission. 1. President Friesen, Dr.Francis Rollesten, and the Council Memebers are being placed on notice that allegations of misconduct, dereliction of duty and responsibility are being made because, had your own regulations and guidelines been properly enforced then the misconduct could not have occurred. President Friesen has been involved from the beginning due his long tenure (perhaps reproductive background?). Dr.Rollesten is alleged to have made a false promise to investigate in 1996. Serious allegations of cover up date to Dr. Slotin circa 1988. Please be fully aware that if a satisfactory answer is not found that serious allegations involving members of the Health and Human Services (Mr.J.Dockery and Dr.L.W.Bivens) all interrelated to J.C.M.Riley will be made in the U.S. Based on your own MRC II forms (supplied by Dr.Rollesten in 1996), and the 1988—89 Grants and Awards Guide, serious allegations of deliberate misconduct will be made against the Administration of the University of Waterloo and J.C.M.Riley. Make no mistake, as Dr.Rollesten has appeared to mislead, the allegations are against the Administration of the University of Waterloo: Dr.J.C.Carson could not have acted without their consent nor direction (your very own Guidelines so dictate!). Your job (President and Council Members) is to be RESPONSIBLE: to respect the public’s safety and handle tax dollars responsibly, and NOT to give monies out to promote a friend’s or politician’s child — which is exactly what I allege you did! Any time NRC irresponsibly ignores its own guidelines, then NRC is endangering the public: creating a new thalidomide or DES (harm for generations). Any time MRC uses tax monies for incompetent researchers it is responsible for promoting harm to society. Allegations, like those ruled upon in the Bitove investigation, of political intervention are being made. The allegations are that people influential to the Progressive Conservative party (for example both Pres. Douglas Wright, a former PC cabinet minister and associate of P.M. Brian Mulroney, and Senator Trevor Eyton whom the PM made a Senator had direct connections to the government directly overlooking NRC: among many people associated with UW) could easily influence MRC to promote special interests of their university: the University of Waterloo. Please be aware that the then Science Minister, Bill Winegard was a former Pres. of Guelph University, which had a joint Center of Excellence alliance with the University of Waterloo. As with the Bitove ruling, the allegation has a real foundation. Politicians are being cited by Justice Krever for the HIV blood scandal that harmed the public. Politicians over ruled Pierre Blais to allow silicon implants to harm the public. I am alleging that NRC Guidelines were violated to promote J.C.M.Riley. Please answer the following: 2. Did oxidation damage occur in the J.C.M.Riley Ph.D. membrane preparation? Yes or No? If oxidation damage occurred, then I allege that the Administration of the University of Waterloo deliberately engaged in misconduct and Charter violations to receive funding from MRC (and NIH). Are you now prepared to respect your own guidelines and perform a proper and thorough investigation, or will NRC continue to engage in a cover up? I must comment on the tremendous lack of effort exhibited by MRC to this date. Please read your own Objectives 1— 8. Before proceeding, certain simple definitions must be made. (1) The Scientific Method requires work to be repeatable. Theories are put forward and tested! Any work which can be repeated under controlled conditions represents a proof -- not an opinion. To SUPPRESS any work that can be repeated under controlled conditions does NOT represent the scientific method. SUPPRESSION IS A FORM OF MISCONDUCT! Suppression for misrepresentation so to gain federal monies represents a fraudulent action. (2) Ethic p1. Ethics. The Science of Morals 1602. 3a. The moral system of a particular writer or school of thought 1651. The rules of conduct recognized in certain limited departments of human life 1789. 4. The science of human duty in its widest extent, including, besides ethics proper, the science of law whether civil, political, or international l69O. (3) Misconduct 1. Bad management; mismanagement. Often quasi- spec., malfeasance. 2. Improper conduct. NRC II forms provided by Dr.Francis Rollesten (1996) will be cross-referenced to the 1988/89 Grants and Awards Guide, provided by Dr.L.Slotin (circa 1988). ANY discrepancies between old and new forms will place the onus on NRC since the appropriate forms were requested. The allegations concern the conscious intent by the University of Waterloo to commit misconduct, unethical activity (including Charter violations) and cover up, so ANY excuses involving new vs. old forms or guidelines will simply be unacceptable. 3. Highlights from: Application for an Operating Grant MRC/CRM (1995) Sections are alphabetized for reference. Underlining or capital- ization added for emphasis. (A) p.1. “Eligibility, .... who hold an academic appointment in a Canadian university,...These investigators should have been given the RESPONSIBILITY by the UNIVERSITY or INSTITUTION to direct research projects and to supervise students.” (B)pii. “It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the applicant to provide clear and concise answers to all questions on the application form” (C)p.1 “Operating Grant Application The undersigned agree that: the general conditions governing the award of a research grant, AS SET OUT in the NRC Grants and Awards Guide, apply TO ANY grant made pursuant to this application and are hereby ACCEPTED BY the applicant(s) AND THE INSTITUTION which employs the applicant(s) Signatures: Applicant(s) President Head of Dean of Faculty or Dept. Principal Name: Date: (D) piii.Signatures The signatures on the application COMMIT BOTH the applicant(s) AND THE INSTITUTION to SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITES. The applicant(s) and the INSTITUTION are JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE for adherence to the general conditions governing the award of a research grant as outlined in the MRC Grants and Awards Guide.,.. Original signatures are required from the UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED DELEGATE representing the INSTITUTION. If the applicant is normally the signing authority for the department or the faculty, another senior official must sign instead. The Signature Certifies: -The UNIVERSITY’S WILLINGNESS to administer ANY grant received according to MRC policies as set out in the MRC Grants and Awards Guide and in ETHICS and INTEGRITY guidelines as defined by the Council. —The University will release funds to the applicant only when ALL CONDITIONS have been met.” 4. (E) p.iv. “Original Signatures are also required from the applicant. The Signature(s) CONIFRMS: -the accuracy of all information provided -acceptance of the terms and conditions of the grant -that the applicant has read and agrees to comply with the requirements for ETHICS and INTEGERITY in the MRC Grants and Awards Guide.” (F) p.x. “External Referees You are invited to suggest the names of four peers competent to review in the field(s) of research in which you propose to work. They should not be from the same institution or city nor should they be or have been associates with you or your co-applicants or collaborators within the last 10 years.” (G) pxii. “Researchers in Canada seeking to train an MRC student in their laboratory must submit their request for a Studentship Award…. it is the Council’s INTENT that each investigator awarded a voucher will develop a program to identify and recruit the MOST QUALIFIED and MERITORIOUS student” (H) pxiii. “Page 10 Summary of research proposal The objectives, hypothesis, approach and research plan should b summarized. Page 11 Summary of Progress Applicants for renewal of an Operating Grant must complete this page. They should SUMMARIZE THE ACHIEVEMENTS made during the tenure of the grant, relating these to the ORIGINAL OBJECTIVES. Refer briefly to published work and IDENTIFY HOW THE WORK HAS ADVANCED THE STATE OF KMOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD.” (I) pxiii. “Page 12 Research Proposal A clear concise description of the research proposal should be provided. It should describe the CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE about the work proposed, including RELEVAMT work done by the applicant, CLEARLY DELINEATE THE OBJECTIVES and research plan and provide a RATIONALE for choosing PARTICULAR METHODS and APPROACHES.” 5. (J) p.xiv “Page 14 This page must be provided and signed by EACH applicant. A. Indicate the number of publications in the past FIVE YEARS ONLY, for each of the following categories: 1. Refereed papers, published or in press 2. Refereed papers, submitted B. List these publications separated into the categories defined in (A). For MRC renewal applicants indicate which publications are a result of your current MRC grant. C. Identify those publications (manuscripts) which you believe to be the most important and explain why.” (K) p.xv. “Appendix 2. Approval forms for ethical considerations and containment “Appendix 3: Letter of collaboration and support 1.

Load more

  108

Copy Link